Did Michael Mann Just Predict the Death of Wind Power?

It is predictable that climate alarmists like Michael Mann are quick to see anthropogenic influence in high profile extreme weather events, like Hurricane Harvey. But Mann’s message about Harvey has interesting implications for the Texan wind power industry.

It’s a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly

Michael E Mann
Tuesday 29 August 2017 00.07 AEST

What can we say about the role of climate change in the unprecedented disaster that is unfolding in Houston with Hurricane Harvey? There are certain climate change-related factors that we can, with great confidence, say worsened the flooding.

What we know so far about tropical storm Harvey

Sea level rise attributable to climate change – some of which is due to coastal subsidence caused by human disturbance such as oil drilling – is more than half a foot (15cm) over the past few decades (see here for a decent discussion). That means the storm surge was half a foot higher than it would have been just decades ago, meaning far more flooding and destruction.

…

Finally, the more tenuous but potentially relevant climate factors: part of what has made Harvey such a devastating storm is the way it has stalled near the coast. It continues to pummel Houston and surrounding regions with a seemingly endless deluge, which will likely top out at nearly 4ft (1.22m) of rainfall over a days-long period before it is done.

The stalling is due to very weak prevailing winds, which are failing to steer the storm off to sea, allowing it to spin around and wobble back and forth. This pattern, in turn, is associated with a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system over much of the US at the moment, with the jet stream pushed well to the north. This pattern of subtropical expansion is predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change.

More tenuous, but possibly relevant still, is the fact that very persistent, nearly “stationary” summer weather patterns of this sort, where weather anomalies (both high-pressure dry hot regions and low-pressure stormy/rainy regions) stay locked in place for many days at a time, appears to be favoured by human-caused climate change. We recently published a paper in the academic journal Scientific Reports on this phenomenon.

Back in 2011, climate scientists were predicting global warming would lead to stronger winds.

If Mann is right, if large scale stationary weather patterns are to become more frequent – days, maybe weeks of low wind speeds, potentially coupled with cloudy conditions which prevent solar systems from working, in my opinion the renewable energy business model in regions affected by this phenomenon is well and truly broken.

No plausible backup power regime other than fossil fuels or nuclear power could cope with such prolonged outages.

Um ! Please sir; but isn’t it a bad time to be trying to collect solar energy during a hurricane ??

I mean it is way too cloudy for solar PV panels, and it is so windy, they will get blown off the roof, and because of the hurricane wind speeds you have to lock down the wind turbines. What good are wind turbines if you have to lock them down when the win blows ??

Lol! For quite some time now I’ve been taunting wind turbine advocates by accusing them of creating climate change (tongue in cheek). My argument was that since the energy derived from windmills was the energy in the atmosphere that drove weather systems, weather fronts would slow down or stall. They have yet to suggest why that would not be the case.

Leo,
Related is the question whether “…human-caused climate change” is solely capable of causing “subtropical expansion,” or if any warming would potentially cause it and thereby be indistinguishable from anthropogenic influences. Yes, he is making unsupportable claims backed up by unstated assumptions.

“Subtropical expansion” is more reliably attributed to global, or hemispheric, warming due to certain orbital parameters such as inclination of the polar axis.
It’s called Summer.
It has been successfully modeled and predicted since being postulated by George Hadley in 1735.

It is far past time for our species to begin mitigation measures for storms like these
Like
Strengthening infrastructure
…Hardening and raising Levees
…Building taller more resilient sea walls
Creating better water retention and drainage strategies
Rebuilding damaged structures in a more hardened fashion to withstand the next storm
…Hurricane Proof
…Tornado Proof
…Water tight capable
……and/or
…Living areas raised above flood water levels
Replacing aging pumps and power lines along levees for low lying areas
Increasing water storage facilities

All excellent points, Bryan. I would add that I have read on this site that some parts of the flooded area are approximately 12 feet below previous elevation due to ground water removal. We need to at least consider what we are doing that makes problems much worse.

Bartleby strikes at a truth that few realize. Most people think dry, dusty, and hot, when Texas is mentioned. If you look at the western outskirts of Houston, though, you will see an area called, “Riceland.” It’s an outer suburb of the city, filled with nice neighborhood and modestly expensive homes. How did it get its name? Because before the housing developments there were huge rice farms, aka, rice paddies, covering the area. Now if you know anything about the cultivation of rice, you understand the original nature of the land.

…yes like this one… ” Sea level rise attributable to climate change – some of which is due to coastal subsidence caused by human disturbance such as oil drilling – is more than half a foot (15cm) over the past few decades .”

What a loon. Absolute SL rise on the past 30 years is, at the most 60 mm. about one third of magic Mike’s statement. The amount attributed to CAGW; very very little.

‘Coastal subsidence due to oil drilling’ is a new one. The resultant rise in relative sea level was of course balanced by the sea floor subsidence caused by oil and gas extraction in the Gulf of Mexico, which would have cause the sea level decrease. You can make a story out of anything if you put your mind to it.

Well, at least it is good to know that Mickey believes it is only the result of “human-caused climate change”. That means, once again, it is “humans” that will be causing these awful and serious problems, in this case, making conditions where wind power will be not economically viable.

Well, now, the Great Mann: –
Nobble Laureate – sort-of;
Olympic medallist in all sorts of dodgy endeavours – trap shooting, maybe?;
Multiply awarded humanitarian [sorry – Humannitarian] endeavours, such as making sure you have to exercise [walk] to get to work – as you can’t afford the power otherwise;
Probably also has Scrabble shields!
And Medals for Multiplying [Maths, I hope!]

HGaven’t heard “unprecedented” for a while. I think that “historic” had taken over. As to Harvey being unprecedented, I seem to remember that there was a hurricane in the distant past that pretty well wiped out Galveston. And, of course, there were Katrina and Rita. Not in the Houston area, but very nasty storms.

Hinged and collapsible wind turbines must be mounted on rail cars to deliver them to where the wind blows on any given day.
They can plug into the grid just about anywhere.
Just pull up to the station, crank the turbines vertical and plug them in.

Let’s put turbines on all of the rail cars!! They move fast enough to generate “wind” for the turbines and we just connect them to batteries IN the rail cars, and then deliver the batteries to wherever the trains go. (We won’t bring up that the rail cars are fossil fueled themselves…who needs Inconvenient Truths?)

I hope he wiped thoroughly after pulling this lump of academic excrement out. How exactly does oil drilling up to 3 km down cause surface subsidence? The rest is just retrospective reinterpretation of his magical thinking on climate change.

I agree that water extracted from shallow reservoirs is partly used for drilling and fracking, but without quantifying that, how is it reasonable to selectively blame oil and gas exploration and not all the other uses of water which are unrelated? This is very selective reasoning.

So, if raising water levels by 15cm (6″) it Dr Mann’s best argument (only stated reason for human cause) what would 6″ less water look like…
https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJjYJhBytAU
All of these intersections have around 6-8 finches of water so they would obviously obviously now be undamaged
Here is another street that would be drag nd undamaged
(Wait…streets aren’t really damaged by standing water…perhaps the subdivision builder should have imported a little more topsoil prior to construction. At least the houses are high and dry)
6″ less water here… not a bit of difference
The only places where 6″ less water would make a real difference is where there was 5″ or less water

Bryan A – I have friends in Cypress who had water part way up their drive way. Sun is shining now and just a little water left in the street. They say the flooding they get is from backflow through the storm drains.

“Harvey has generated the highest storm surge at Port Lavaca since Hurricane Carla (1961). However, Harvey’s storm surge level in this area is not as rare as we might believe, and it may come in fifth place for all surges since 1919. What’s exceptionally rare about Harvey is that this storm surge will combine with a stalling storm and tremendous rainfall, which will generate catastrophic flooding.”

So….Mickey Mann….5th place (after all that global warming) and let’s subtract your 6 inches of water….10-12 feet becomes 9.5-11.5 feet (likely) or 6.5 feet “observed”. Yeah, that’s a whole lot less Mann. (dork) Also, sea level has little to nothing to do with the height of a storm surge. It’s all dependent on where the “tide” is at, and the amount of vertical pressure plus the strength of the winds that are literally “piling” up water on top of the ocean and forcing it into the coast.

Every time he speaks, a kitten or a puppy somewhere in the world falls down dead. What an evil and completely misinformed Mann.

Mann’s statement that “stationary summer weather patterns of this sort…appears to be favoured by human-caused climate change” is not even logical. Mann personifies “climate change” as if it has a thinking mind and can “favour” a certain weather pattern. There is no way a model can predict an unpredictable scenario such as future climate. Michael Mann should climb under a rock and stay there until his retirement.

Joe Bastardi, who actually got it right in May, notes today that Harvey is controlled by cold continental low pressure. The ‘spreading tropical high’ is another bit of wrong-headedness from Mann.
Joe’s worst fears may be coming true, but who listened?

They all ought to be listening in the future because Joe nailed the forecast.

I imagine in the future there will be a great emphasis on whether a hurricane is going to stall or not. People now understand what stalling entails. I’m not sure they did before Hurricane Harvey. That knowledge will give them another reason to evacuate.

Joe Bastardi emphasized over and over again that this storm could stall and drop enormous amounts of rain.

Yeah, they will be paying attention to Joe in the future if they know what’s good for them.

You don’t need any future changes in wind patterns to invalidate the usefulness of wind power. Typically a large high pressure area settles in during the summer months, which kills winds at the very time when power demands (A/C) are the highest. I remember one statistic that during such a period in Texas, the wind turbines were operating at a capacity below 5%. Recently I saw figures tht indicate that the production of offshore wind farms in Britain was roughly half of what it had been the previous year. Can you imagine that? A grid whose capacity varies by 100%

Maybe it was caused by ‘climate change’ but that is not evidence that Mankind caused the ‘climate change’, nor that we can do anything about it whatever the cause.

It’s the speed of the hand that deceives the eye…

‘…sea level rise attributable to climate change – some of which is due to coastal subsidence caused by human disturbance such as oil drilling…’

Yes but Mikey the whole point is how much of the ‘some’ is attributable to climate change and how much of the ‘some’ attributable to the ‘human distrubances’ and apart from the oil drilling what are the other ‘disturbances’ – a rather important thing we need to know because if we don’t know the causes, ‘stopping’ just one, like climate change, will be futile.

Of course I realise actual evidentiary detail is not his strong point.

Bill, I noticed this too. “Climate change” is just another way of saying “what’s been different about the weather over the last few decades”. That’s an observation, a statistical aggregation, and not a force. I suspect what those climastrologists actually mean when they say “climate change causes more hurricanes” or “climate change makes forest fires more likely” is along the lines of “anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause more hurricanes”, etc, but I suspect they don’t write it like that because then they’d get laughed at. (Even more.) By adding a level of statistical obfuscation, they can sound more scientifical to laypeople. That’s very important when you’re trying to grub up more grant money.

I see no plausible argument that Harvey’s rain was occasioned by global warming. I remember when hurricane experts were asked about the effects of, I believe, 1 or 2 degrees warming in the Atlantic on the strength and frequency of hurricanes. The consensus was that water temps are not particularly relevant to the conditions that spawn hurricanes and they also estimated that the top wind speeds of a major hurricane would be increased by a few miles per hour – not enough to make a difference. Katrina blew up from a nothing, tropical storm to a hurricane in a matter of a few days sheerly by chance – it tracked a warm Gulf current originating in the Carribean for many hours. Those currents it tracked are repeated over and over, circulating from the Carribean to the Gulf.
And, as one poster pointed out, global warming has been ongoing , with a few stops and starts (Little Ice Age) since the last Ice age. At this point we not only have no definitive knowledge of the amount of warming, we also have no definitive knowledge of its causes. Mann has a habit of making statements as if they are not open to debate. This from the jerk who wrote in a private email that all computer models lacked the ability ot predict anything, followed by his public statements that
momentous decisions should be on the basis of those same computer climate modelling programs. Maybe if Man would provide answers to those unknowns, he would have better luck convincing people. As of now, Michael Mann is nothing more than a bald headed bag of wind,
spouting nonsense, which even he doesn’t seem to believe.

Warmer conditions mean more water vapor. If the Gulf in recent Augusts has been .4-.5 degree C warmer than in preindustrial times, that means about 4% more water vapor, which means 4% more rain if the wind is unchanged.

What do mean by pre-industrial times? What was the Gulf temp ( as if it could be defined by a single temperature) in 1900? 1800? 1700?
Was the Gulf temperature warmer than usual at this time? What was the temperature during previous hurricanes?
I believe this hurricane coincided with a high tide. Is the convergence of hurricanes and high tides predicted by global warming? No? So, the hurricane happening at high tide was just double bad luck! Enough years go by and a hurricane will occur at a high tide condition, regardless of climatic conditions. The hurricane and high tide are coincident with a blocking high on land apparently. Has this happened more frequently lately? If AGW predicts it but it hasn’t happened before, isn’t that indicative of yet another failed prediction of the AGW hypothesis? Isn’t Michael Mann already proven conclusively to be utterly full of B.S.?
I would argue that the dearth of hurricanes and severe weather in recent years has SPARED the U.S. coast from ANY predicted level of damages.

Does anyone seriously still listen to pronouncements from Mann and his goon show? Everyone knows that had this storm been moving at aircraft speed then these mountebanks would have claimed that it was due to more severe weather patterns caused by global warming – just as they predicted. With each passing day they look more like shabby-overcoated old men on street corners hollering about the rapture.

Or move inland and be more widely disbursed. The thing is, these setups can happen with mjo phase 2. It was just bad luck.

Ultimately, if people keep predicting every possible scenario, they can eventually keep pointing to claims for EVERY weather event. No way to be wrong. Magic co2 can do anything and everything, even opposites.

Water (not oil or gas) removal from the ground does cause dropping of local level. Without this ground water removal, much of Texas would not have enough water supply for needs, so this a long term problem.

The crowning insult to injury–due to all the sea salts, backed up sewage, fuel leakage from inundated cars, decomposing remains of drowning victims, and other generally nasty stuff–is that floodwaters are extremely unsafe to drink.

Those nasty unsafe, non-potable floodwaters become safe for drinking and cooking after they percolate down through 20 to 100+ feet of soil, sand, gravel, etc., to become part of the “ground water” situate in the “water table”.

Here’s another DUH for Mickey Mann….if these storms are only going to get worse and more frequent, isn’t putting up vast wind farms OFFSHORE also a very stupid idea? Not only no power during and after such storms, but then they have to rebuild the damn wind farms too!!

I was watching some kids the other day tap on the glass of a fish tank and they were told not to do that because the vibrations are magnified inside the tank and are harmful to the fish….and then my mind went….”Wind Turbines…” if the HUM of those suckers on land is enough to drive humans and other animals bug nuts….what do you suppose that hum will do once it’s magnified under ocean water???

These people are the most illogical, unscientific, unbelievable idiots on the planet these days. Every word out of their mouths is just pure ignorance. No wonder the public’s trust in climate science ranks right down there with the public’s trust in news media and congress!! Wake up and smell the wood chips Mickey. No one believes you anymore.

The cost of merely maintaining an off shore farm has been reported to be 3X the cost of on shore wind farms. I assume that is for benign conditions as well. Ocean salt fog environments are not kind to electrical components.

Not kind to mechanical units, either.
I know these are – we are told – sealed units.
But I have seen failed ‘sealed lubrication’ units at sea – more than enough!
And even the transfer from the service boat to the tower structure is pretty hairy in all but very benign conditions.

Auto
Respect the sea, and it may not harm you.
Abuse the sea – and ensure you have a gold ear-ring.
[So your drowned body will have a Christian burial when it washes ashore]

Anything Mann says always sets off the highest readies on the BS meters , the only straight thing about him is the handle on his worthless ‘stick ‘
So when you playing ‘heads you lose , tails I win ‘ like a good climate ‘scientists’ of course you can claim to be right and run enough models to give yourself every possible result then you can ‘prove’ how right you are from these models. Shame you cannot use them worth a dam to make actually accurate predictions , but who needs facts when you have ‘faith ‘

The day the rest of them through him under the bus to save themselves, and it his approach toward his fellow believers that make a certainty, could not come soon enough .

May he live a long time , so he can see his life’s work held up as the joke it is , by the very community he consider he leads .

If we didn’t have in Texas Amelia (48″ 1978) Claudette (45″ 1979) and a host of other very wet storms in the GOM, then I would definitely be worried. But we did have them and it will happen again. It just gets down to why do we build in areas that are prone to flooding like it will never happen?

Add hurricane Allison (41″ 2001) and an unnamed tropical storm (30″ 1960) to your list. These high rainfall amounts are not ‘unprecedented’. They should be expected, in the coastal plains of SE Texas and along the Gulf coast. This is what nature does…..

Exactly. Harvey has many similar predecessors in the record books, and probably thousands of predecessors in the unrecorded history of the land we call Southeast Texas. The only thing that is truly unprecedented with Harvey, is that this is very first time there has been a metropolitan area with 6.5 million people there.

“…more tenuous but potentially relevant….” “More tenuous but possibly relevant still…” The language of a robust science. Looks like he spent more time formulating sciency-sounding weasel words than he spent considering whether these tenuous possibilities were not relevant at all. Infinitely more time.

I spotted that too.
When even he says something is “more tenuous” then you know you are heading up into LSD country. From tree rings to the recent position and influence of the jet streams and the fake streams, there is clearly no end to this Mann’s hallucinated talents.

Mann: “Sea level rise attributable to climate change – some of which is due to coastal subsidence caused by human disturbance such as oil drilling – is more than half a foot (15cm) over the past few decades…”

That is self-contradictory. SLR due to oil drilling cannot also be due to climate change.

As you can see, sea-level is rising there at 6.5 mm/year, which is more than 4x the global average. But at least 3/4 of that rise is due to subsidence, which obviously has nothing to do with climate change.

Additionally, there’s obviously been no significant acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise over the last century. As is typical throughout the world, sea-level is rising no faster now on the U.S. Gulf Coast than it was when CO2 was 100 ppmv lower. All that CO2 has had no detectable effect on the rate of sea-level rise.

Subsidence due to landfill compaction has been plaguing Hong Kong for decades and now is occurring in Shanghai as well. As I recall the new Hong Kong Airport sank 50 mm over a two year period.
Coastal development in marginal zones is a big factor. Anthropogenic, absolutely. But, not meteorological in the least.

Michael Mann:“The stalling is due to very weak prevailing winds, which are failing to steer the storm off to sea, allowing it to spin around and wobble back and forth. This pattern, in turn, is associated with a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system over much of the US at the moment, with the jet stream pushed well to the north. This pattern of subtropical expansion is predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change.”
———————-
The Southern Central Plains has been in an atypical cool Summer. It’s 74F in Oklahoma City, right now and might rise late afternoon to 84F. It’s been this way since July. Avg. for today is 90F, record 106F.
Not much Subtropical expansion, here.

First, it’s important to recognize Dr. Mann’s proven abilities to prognosticate; in the past he hasn’t done quite as well as Punxsutawney Phil and, in short, I wouldn’t depend on his ability to predict the sun will rise in the morning, but enough Scientific accolade.

“It’s a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly

See there? Right off the bat Mann makes a completely unfounded assertion and then proceeds to not present any evidence for it. Ain’t Climate Science grand?

What can we say about the role of climate change in the unprecedented disaster that is unfolding in Houston with Hurricane Harvey? There are certain climate change-related factors that we can, with great confidence, say worsened the flooding.

Note here two things; first, the use of the Royal “we”– Mann doesn’t stand alone in his proclamations and takes no personal responsibility for the statements, allegations or over the top hyperbole to follow. He has followers he speaks for.

Second, he rapidly losses the “anthropogenic” part of AGW and relies on
the reader not noticing that the hurricane in question (Harvey) was doubtless influenced by climate change since all weather events known to humans are influenced by climate. Captain Obvious makes his first empty point.

What we know so far about tropical storm Harvey

Sea level rise attributable to climate change

Again, not AGW, just “climate change”. His readers are expect to fill in the gaps for him and most do. Very clever and deceptive rhetoric.

– some of which is due to coastal subsidence caused by human disturbance such as oil drilling – is more than half a foot (15cm) over the past few decades (see here for a decent discussion).

Some of which is due. No mention of how much and no evidence presented that the number is larger than zero. So we don’t really know how much, if any, is caused by subsidence, or what fraction of that (if any) is caused by oil drilling. But true believers understand that oil drilling is bad and it probably caused all of it. If it happened. At all.

That means the storm surge was half a foot higher than it would have been just decades ago, meaning far more flooding and destruction.

How many decades Dr. Mann? 10? 100? 1000?

… Finally, the more tenuous but potentially relevant climate factors: part of what has made Harvey such a devastating storm is the way it has stalled near the coast. It continues to pummel Houston and surrounding regions with a seemingly endless deluge, which will likely top out at nearly 4ft (1.22m) of rainfall over a days-long period before it is done.

More “tenuous” Dr. Mann? Do tell? Would that include wild speculation on your part?

The stalling is due to very weak prevailing winds, which are failing to steer the storm off to sea, allowing it to spin around and wobble back and forth. This pattern, in turn, is associated with a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system over much of the US at the moment, with the jet stream pushed well to the north. This pattern of subtropical expansion is predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change.

This is of course a simple weather report (see Bill Murray, “Groundhog Day”) having little or nothing to do with “climate”. But when it suits “us”, “we” will decide what is climate and what isn’t.

More importantly, which aspects of the weather aren’t predicted in “model simulations of human caused climate change”? Since the models have historically predicted everything between an ice age and the current climate of Venus, you’ve painted with a very broad and forgiving brush here.

More tenuous, but possibly relevant still,

I’m not clear on this Dr. Mann; is this next point even “more tenuous” than the last (even wilder speculation on your part), or is it simple more wild speculation?

… is the fact that very persistent, nearly “stationary” summer weather patterns of this sort, where weather anomalies (both high-pressure dry hot regions and low-pressure stormy/rainy regions) stay locked in place for many days at a time, appears to be favoured [sic] by human-caused climate change. We recently published a paper in the academic journal Scientific Reports on this phenomenon.”

At last we visit an analysis of “human caused” climate change, for which you present no evidence.

Video of rescue efforts in Houston shows lots of fossil-fueled vehicles. EV’s nowhere to be found. If the CAGW wackos get their way would the rescuers have EV police vehicles? Busses? EV dump trucks? EV helicopters? Talk about needing a 100% fossil fueled backup plan, if you need to have reliable rescue capability.

Still seems too cloudy for solar to matter, and who knows what the winds are doing. Most wind farms were feathered days ago. Where’s Roger Sowell to explain how great all that non-power is?

In the meantime engines and generators are saving lives. Can you imagine the plight of a city built on wind and solar? If you can’t manage to a serious hurricane with it, it is worthless.

I’m the Joe Q Public type that Mann thinks he is reaching and convincing. He assumes I’m dumb.

The man is an idiot. He makes no sense. The gobbledegook written above has nothing to do with meteorological knowledge.

I learn more watching Joe Bastardi every day since he started his daily updates (18 months ago?), and before that, his Saturday summaries. The free videos are on the righthttps://www.weatherbell.com/premium

Joe Bastardi has been right 98-99% of the time over the years AND he has predicted what was going to happen 3-4 months before an event, and before anyone else.

“This pattern, in turn, is associated with a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system over much of the US at the moment, with the jet stream pushed well to the north. This pattern of subtropical expansion is predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change.”

I believe this is called fair warm weather, or alternatively, summer.

—–

It is very common for weather fronts to stall out over the gulf coast.
Tropical Storm Claudette stalled out there and dumped over 60″ of rain in Friendswood, Tx. as measured by multiple people’s rain gauges. (Officially, only 43 inches in nearby Alvin)
My brother-in-law was cursing God while watching the sheets of rain come down from the sky because they were supposed to fly out on vacation to Mexico that day.

The winter after that, we had fog and rain for all but 3 days for over 3 months in Clear Lake City – essentially zero visibility from early January into April. Every front that came through that year just stalled out right over the edge of the gulf and kept bringing more fog and rain.

There’s a reason why the area from Houston to New Orleans to Mobile is so rainy, weather systems commonly stall out there.

No idea if this is related, but here in southern Alberta the temps have been above normal for the past few weeks: July and August look similar to the same two months in 1936. A quick look at the wind turbine stats
(AESO) seems to show that wind generation is way down in the same period. Would take an hour or two of digging to “prove” my claim. We are stuck in a stagnant air mass. Heat is way over rated. ☺

(The reverse was also true last December when it was very cold, high demands and wind was missing in inaction.)

1936 is a long way to go back but most of our Saskatchewan records were set in the 30’s. I think those highs were mostly a result of the very dry conditions prevalent through the 30’s. This year has been quite warm and dry with a number of days in the 30C + range. I can’t tell the difference between this year’s weather and what I remember from around 1975, including that we had more wind this year than for a long time.
So to my mind, approximately 65 years of CO2 effect has produced zero recognizable change in our weather. I can find better things to worry about than this extremely expensive non-event!

“The stalling is due to very weak prevailing winds, which are failing to steer the storm off to sea, allowing it to spin around and wobble back and forth. This pattern, in turn, is associated with a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system over much of the US at the moment, with the jet stream pushed well to the north. This pattern of subtropical expansion is predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change.”

The first part of the first sentence is correct, the hurricane stalled because the steering flow collapsed (thanks Captain Obvious). The last sentence is also accurate, the models do predict subtropical expansion. Everything else in the paragraph is wrong. The subtropical high pattern over the US right now is less extensive than average and the jet stream has been dipping further south than usual for most of the summer. This summer is hardly a conformation of the expansion of the subtropical ridge predicted by the models. It is actually more evidence that the models have no skill.

There is so much ignorance demonstrated in this paragraph alone, that I am gobsmacked. The idea that hurricanes and tropical storms that hit Texas are typically ‘steered off to sea’ would be an idiotic thing for anyone to say, much less a renowned University Professor with a specialty in climate studies. It’s akin to a history professor claiming that the origin of communism begins with the Romans being defeated by the Incas in Australia!

There is zero ignorance demonstrated by Michael Mann. When utter crap comes out of his mouth you can rest assured he knows better! His complete B.S. 1998 paper was likewise not in error. It was exactly crafted with cherry picked data and “funny” math, then he spliced on a scientifically irrelevant blade to his concoction to produce a piece of activist propaganda to drive his career.

Where on earth does Mann get the “land subsidence partly caused by oil drilling” from?? Another of his cock-eyed inventions to deflect us from the truth that he denies, that the hurricane formed naturally, i.e. without man’s assistance?

This pattern, in turn, is associated with a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system over much of the US at the moment, with the jet stream pushed well to the north.

What is the difference between a subtropical high pressure system and a normal high pressure system? I live in Colorado, and we often see a strong blocking high-pressure system in central or western Colorado (or thereabout) during the summer.

“Scientists” will sound the alarm and demand policies be changed to conform to their predictions. Then, the same “scientists” will change their minds for one reason or another, and demand a different set of policies. It is all in the name of “science,” therefore it must be obeyed.

[pulls out soapbox, climbs up]
Once again, “climate change” is not a force that, um, changes the climate. Climate change is the sum of all the changes in the weather norms and averages of a region. “Climate change” doesn’t cause slowly moving hurricanes and increased subtropical highs — those things ARE the “climate change”. Well, except that they aren’t that, either, they’re just “weather.”

Houston, and the entire Gulf Coast, is a low-lying, poorly-draining swamp subject to occasional torrential downpours, and sometimes they don’t move off all that briskly. One only has to look at the history of flooding in Houston to see this is not “unprecedented,” but it is about as bad as it gets — as far as we know, for the short time people have been living there and keeping records.

The alarmists switched from “global warming” to “climate change” because the warming wasn’t so global, nor was it very warming. We need to hold their feet to the fire on this topic, because using “climate change” as a cause is like saying that the changing height of a seedling causes it to grow.

James and readers.
An article written prior to the current situation.
‘…The trouble with living in a swamp: Houston floods explained
By Dylan Baddour May 31, 2016 Updated: April 19, 2017 4:14pm…’
The above is an article from The Houston Chronicle. It contains many references to all the Climate Change issues…gotta get your climate change references in… but as a local paper it has historical facts and photography that shows this city is a Swamp City.
The introduction.
‘…Things get bad when Houston floods. Water swamps homes, takes lives and shuts down the city. But it should be so much worse. There shouldn’t even be a city here…
…Early settlers drained marshes to build Houston town in a muddy bog. Fast forward less than 200 years and the city stands above water, mostly, thanks mostly to 2,500 miles of managed waterways…’
Houston Is A Swamp City. Houston got stuck with a huge but outdated system. Mid-century engineers didn’t anticipate two important things: how bad the rains could get and how much urbanization would exacerbate the floods….

Build subdivisions past the high flood mark. Install levees to protect all those costly homes. Use flood insurance to protect the wealthy. Let the poor that follow the rich be the photo op when the levees fail. Then blame republican car drivers for the catastrophe. Okee dokeee!

Boy, is he convincing or what! BS like this is much better than real evidence: “The main condition for resonance is the formation of a zonally-directed waveguide for a particular zonal wavenumber k, which depends only on the wavenumber and the shape of the zonal-mean zonal wind (U) profile. Such a waveguide is present when a mid-latitude region of positive squared meridional wavenumber l2 is bounded by latitudes both north and south where l2 vanishes, inhibiting the dispersion of wave energy and trapping excited planetary waves in the upper troposphere (300–500 mb).”

Michael Mann wrote: “The stalling is due to very weak prevailing winds, which are failing to steer the storm off to sea, allowing it to spin around and wobble back and forth. This pattern, in turn, is associated with a greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system over much of the US at the moment, with the jet stream pushed well to the north. This pattern of subtropical expansion is predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change.

More tenuous, but possibly relevant still, is the fact that very persistent, nearly “stationary” summer weather patterns of this sort, where weather anomalies (both high-pressure dry hot regions and low-pressure stormy/rainy regions) stay locked in place for many days at a time, appears to be favoured by human-caused climate change.”

As if stalled weather fronts only started happening recently after humans started burning fossil fuels.

How about all those stalled high-pressure systems over the U.S. during the extremely hot 1930’s? That happened before CO2 was an official issue. The fact is, weather systems stall periodically because of the way the winds blow. Mann claiming to see a pattern in the jet stream that creates the high pressure system in the West at the present is laugable. The high-pressure system there just formed in the last few weeks and will not be there long, as the patterns are continuously changing.

Here’s your high-pressure system (marked). Let’s see how long it sits there. And when it moves, will Mann claim CO2 did the moving?:

Slightly an aside, but may speak to motivation. Some websites, such as wxshift.com ignore browser settings Not to use your location. That behavior can often be blocked by Not allowing JavaScript for the site, but that can also disable functionality that one might like to view, such as: wxshift.com//climate-change/climate-indicators/us-wildfire